Now that Acts 29 has kicked Driscoll and Mars Hill out; and James MacDonald has resigned; things aren't over just yet, there's still the Act Like Men conference

A Message from the Board of Acts 29 concerning Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church

It is with deep sorrow that the Acts 29 Network announces its decision to remove Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church from membership in the network. Mark and the Elders of Mars Hill have been informed of the decision, along with the reasons for removal. It is our conviction that the nature of the accusations against Mark, most of which have been confirmed by him, make it untenable and unhelpful to keep Mark and Mars Hill in our network. In taking this action, our prayer is that it will encourage the leadership of Mars Hill to respond in a distinctive and godly manner so that the name of Christ will not continue to be dishonored.The Board of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network

Earlier today our board chairman, as well as many of our other pastors, received a letter from Matt Chandler, the president of Acts 29. The letter notified us that the board of Acts 29 has removed Pastor Mark and Mars Hill from membership in the Acts 29 church planting network. Our board responded to the letter with the following update to our elders, and we wanted to share it with you as well.

Men,I told the lead pastors at the recent annual retreat that we are making real progress in addressing the serious reconciliation and unhealthy culture issues that have been a part of Mars Hill Church for way too long. And we are. I also told them that more opposition would undoubtedly be coming, and it has. Friendly fire always hurts the most.I have never in my life spoken with Matt Chandler or any of the A29 board members for that matter (except Darrin Patrick, once about 4 years ago as part of Pastor Mark’s employment review process which he used to be a part of). In addition, no one from Acts 29 contacted Larry Osborne of our board prior to this decision. And perhaps most significantly, Pastor Mark was not personally contacted by the A29 board prior to receiving this announcement.So I am not quite sure what Matt means by “leaning on the board to take the lead in dealing with this matter.”Be assured of this, the formal charges that were filed were serious, were taken seriously and were not dismissed by the board lightly. There is clear evidence that the attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark’s life for some time now.Our board’s decision is final regarding these charges, although will no doubt continue to be played out in the courts of public opinion. Again, I am deeply saddened that the A29 board would make such a decisive and divisive conclusion without speaking directly to the board or Mark prior to their public announcement.My counsel to you is to not become bitter or angry. Continue to pray for all involved. Continue to love and lead the people God has brought to your churches. They need a pastor right now and God has given them you!Michael Van SkaikChairman, Board of Advisors and AccountabilityLarry OsborneBoard Member

Some might say that in light of this weekend's announcements and counter-announcements that the boys could be doing a better job of acting like men.

Driscoll is set off with red, MacDonald with blue, and the boys from Acts 29's board in green.

As Wenatchee The Hatchet has been noting, whatever changes in literary and verbal style may have taken place in the tone of Mark Driscoll's interaction with the subjects of gender and sexuality it may be useful to ask whether the substance of his message has not remained fundamentally unchanged. "Act Like Men" is certainly more restrained, dignified and marketable than "Pussified Nation". There's plenty of time between now and the Act Like Men conference for the relevant parties involved to explain what's been going on lately. For instance, how long ago did leadership at Acts 29 know about Mark Driscoll's writings as William Wallace II? Did it in any way impact the thoughts leadership had about Driscoll? How far back would Acts 29 be willing to say it knew of issues with Mark Driscoll it considered problematic? Since this statement on the part of Acts 29 leadership is relatively new why were no comparable statements made, say, in 2005? 2007? 2009? The board in its current form didn't start coming about until about the spring of 2012.